A Modest proposal to solve the 1914 problem

by r51785 40 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Mikejw

  There are so many problems with 1914, not just Millers stolen 77 week nonsense.

  JWs are the only ones who think Michael was Jesus who battled with Satans demons in 1914 and became king in that year after throwing them out of heaven which is JWs explanation of WW1.

  Then they use a convoluted 3.5 year nonsense thing to say Jesus chose his one true religion 3.5 years later which would have been 1917/18 but they round it upto 1919. This was the year that Brothers who had been playing tennis in a luxury low security prison were let out
• 

  scholar

  Phizzy

  • Bloody Hell ! The well known Troll "Scholar" is back ! with the usual twaddle.

    The said scholar does net deal with twaddle but facts!!!

    scholar JW

    Link Dislike Like
• 

  scholar

  Mikejw

  The dates 1914, 1918 and 1919 for an eschatological triennium are all based on Biblical theology and prophecy.

  scholar JW
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  In a recently published work and previous editions by Carl Olaf Jonsson who made it his life's work to refute 607 BCE and 1914 CE, attempts to refute such claims using seventeen lines of evidence. However, if 607 BCE is demonstrably wrong then only ONE line of evidence is needed. So, my challenge to all critics of the date 607 BCE is to provide one single line of evidence that disproves 607 BCE?

  LOL. That's a new one. 17 lines of evidence is too many. You can't show 607 to be incorrect with 17 different lines of evidence.. noooo, it should just be one. COJ was *too* convincing,
• 

  scholar

  MeanMrMustard

  LOL. That's a new one. 17 lines of evidence is too many. You can't show 607 to be incorrect with 17 different lines of evidence.. noooo, it should just be one. COJ was *too* convincing,

  --

  Well, 17 lines of evidence indicate something fishy for if 607 BCE is truly wrong then it would take one line of evidence. The fact of the matter is that not one of these lines of evidence is based on the Bible so this corpus of so-called lines of evidence belongs in the trash can.. It takes only one line of evidence to prove 607 BCE as I have already explained in a previous post.

  scholar JW

  scholar JW
  
  
• 

  nicolaou

  Scholar: The fact of the matter is that not one of these lines of evidence is based on the Bible so this corpus of so-called lines of evidence belongs in the trash can.

  Pure cognitive bias.
• 

  TonusOH

  Welcome back, scholar. If I'd known you were going to return, I would have stocked up on popcorn!
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  The fact of the matter is that not one of these lines of evidence is based on the Bible..

  Right, right. The old fall-back. Which is why I've gotten right to the Biblican topics with you in the past. The Bible does not require the 70 years to desolation. In fact, you can't get to 70 years of desolation without disregarding grammar while reading the scriptures in question.
• 

  notsurewheretogo

  Pure cognitive bias.

  So obvious right? Hilarious but sad for scholar.
  
  
• 

  peacefulpete

  A simple solution might just be brewing. The protraction of the 'great tribulation' to new lengths could possibly be explained as a step toward 'new light' that we have been in the GT. Why not? In fact, that is closer to the meaning of the Gospels. The 'tribulation' was a descriptor of the events as a whole.